24 Jan 2022
The claimant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that there was long-term and serious leakage or that any leakage caused infestation and the claimed health and economic losses; the landlord took reasonable investigatory and remedial steps and the available expert evidence did not establish the necessary causal link, therefore the claimant's claims are dismissed.
22 Oct 2012
The plaintiff failed to prove a enforceable right to the airspace above the extended slab because the alterations predated the relevant assignments; in any event predecessors-in-title had waived or acquiesced to the UBWs so that estoppel barred enforcement by the plaintiff; discretionary relief in the form of a mandatory injunction was refused because of lengthy delay, acquiescence and unfairness; alleged loss of rental income was not shown to be caused by any actionable breach. Therefore all claims and the defendant's counterclaim were dismissed.
28 Jan 2004
Defendants breached duties: the 3rd defendant breached by failing to obtain counsel's opinion or properly advise on the doubtful legal efficacy of the DMC scheme to make the Naming Right proprietary; the 2nd defendant was personally liable for failing to supervise and advise despite being the client contact; the Signboards conveyed did not exist as physical boards so plaintiff did not receive good title; causation established as plaintiff would not have completed if properly advised; damages calculated as difference between contract price and market value at completion plus related losses; ju…
5 Apr 2000
There was an implied term that split-cheque/payment directions must be given in reasonable time and Kensland gave such directions in time; the purchaser repudiated by failing to complete and Kensland validly forfeited 10% of the purchase price; the solicitors (Tam Pun) were negligent in failing to exercise reasonable care in preparing and delivering correct documentation causing delay and are liable to reimburse the forfeited deposit; the Bank was not negligent nor vicariously liable because it did not retain Tam Pun as its solicitors.
12 Nov 1993
The application for leave was dismissed because the appellants failed to demonstrate that the matter in dispute met the $500,000 threshold under Rule 2(a) due to speculative and unproven causation and quantification of loss, and failed under Rule 2(b) because the issue concerned a private contractual clause and was not shown to be of great general or public importance.